Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87757 Case Number: LCR11548 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DUNNES STORES LTD - and - IDATU |
(a) Withdrawal by the Company of hot water facilities from the staff canteen. (b) Prices in the staff canteen. (c) Hours of work for part-time staff.
Recommendation:
9. The non-attendance by the Company at the hearing and the fact
that it did not either make a submission to the Court or comment
on the Union submission did not assist the Court's consideration
of this case. However, on the basis of the evidence presented,
the Court is of the view that the Company should restore the
facility of hot water to the staff without delay and recommends
accordingly. The Court also recommends that the canteen committee
should be re-instated with a view to the monitoring of prices
menus, etc.
The Court further recommends that the parties should endeavour to
negotiate a fair distribution of available hours for all part-time
staff.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87757 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11548
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: DUNNES STORES CORNELSCOURT LIMITED
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. (a) Withdrawal by the Company of hot water facilities from the
staff canteen.
(b) Prices in the staff canteen.
(c) Hours of work for part-time staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. On the 10th September, 1987, the Union referred the
above-mentioned claims to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. The Company declined an invitation to a conciliation
conference and on the 24th September, the Union referred the
issues to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969, agreeing beforehand to accept the Court's
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 2nd November,
1987, at which the Company did not attend.
Claim (a) - withdrawal of hot water facilities from staff canteen
BACKGROUND:
3. The Union alleges that following complaints about prices in
the staff canteen, the personnel manager withdrew the hot water
facility from the staff. This was rejected by Management at local
level.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
4. 1. It is the Union's view that the Company's approach to the
hot water facility has been both petty and provocative and it
requests the Court to recommend that the Company restore the
facility. The Union does not know of any other Company in
the retail sector or elsewhere which does not provide its
workforce with hot water.
Claim (b) - Prices in the staff canteen
BACKGROUND:
5. The Union claims that in May of this year, there was
considerable dissatisfaction with standards in the staff canteen.
Prices were increased and portions of food were reduced. In
addition, there was little variety in the food and hygiene
standards were not acceptable.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Union requests the Court to recommend that the
committee for the canteen be re-instated by Management. This
committee used to meet on a weekly basis with a view to
monitoring prices, menus, etc. The committee's
re-instatement was requested by the Union in July but this
was ignored by Management.
2. The Union further requests the Court to recommend that
the Company run the staff canteen on a non-profit making
basis and adjust the prices so that all staff have a
reasonable opportunity of using the canteen.
Claim (c) - Working hours for part-time staff
BACKGROUND:
7. In November, 1986, the Union wrote to the Company seeking the
restoration of hours of work to named part-timers. The Company,
in response, claimed that the original hours had been offered back
to the people concerned and had been refused.
UNIONS ARGUMENT:
8. 1. The Union refutes the Company's contention and requests
the Court to recommend the re-instatement of these workers on
their original hours, especially in view of the fact that new
part-time workers are now being given hours in excess of
those being worked by the permanent part-time staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The non-attendance by the Company at the hearing and the fact
that it did not either make a submission to the Court or comment
on the Union submission did not assist the Court's consideration
of this case. However, on the basis of the evidence presented,
the Court is of the view that the Company should restore the
facility of hot water to the staff without delay and recommends
accordingly. The Court also recommends that the canteen committee
should be re-instated with a view to the monitoring of prices
menus, etc.
The Court further recommends that the parties should endeavour to
negotiate a fair distribution of available hours for all part-time
staff.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th November, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
D.H./P.W. Deputy Chairman